What is the European Union (EU) trying to achieve in Myanmar? Is the EU speaking with one voice and acting collectively (and does it really matter)? Were the sanctions lifted too early? These are some of the key questions surrounding the current role of the EU in relation to Myanmar. A close analysis of the EU's Myanmar policy demonstrates that, while clearly driven by normative convictions, the EU's approach and posture vis-à-vis Myanmar since 1988 has been more reactive than carefully planned and strategised. Whereas in the period from 1988 until early 2011 the EU's Myanmar policy frequently fluctuated between a “carrot” and a “stick” approach, depending on the circumstances, since 2011 the emphasis has been on carrots, which signifies an important shift in the application of normative power. The EU has generously provided large amounts of aid intended mainly to assist Myanmar in its transition. This approach does not seem to factor in the possibility of backward steps and is based on a scenario of ongoing, linear political and economic reforms. This optimism is shared by both the European Commission and most EU member states. However, the similar perceptions and compatible normative foundations on which their policies are based have so far not translated into well-coordinated and coherent strategies and development cooperation programmes.

No abstract

While some authors have suggested that theoretical contributions to the study of interregionalism mostly lack sufficient empirical proof, this article shows that there is ample evidence to support key prepositions of all three schools of thought in the debate (neorealism, liberal institutionalism and social constructivism). Existing cooperation mechanisms in Europe-Asia relations are not just 'talking shops' but fulfil important functions in the international system. However, the main shortcoming of the inter-regionalism discourse todate is its analytical one-eye blindness: the political realities of interregional cooperation are reduced to interactions between the two region's foreign policy elites and have a strong focus on dialogue fora such as ASEM. The article explains that the promotion of good regional governance, economic integration and peace-building through development assistance (ODA) is the more effective part of the European Union's (EU) foreign relations with East Asia as compared to high-level diplomacy in the framework of ASEM or the official EU-ASEAN dialogue.